Who was more important to Red victory in the Russian Civil War? By this, I mean who made the bigger contribution?
However, it would also be nice to have some discussion on the two characters outside of the Civil War.
Printable View
Who was more important to Red victory in the Russian Civil War? By this, I mean who made the bigger contribution?
However, it would also be nice to have some discussion on the two characters outside of the Civil War.
Trotsky made more contribution in the civil war, but Lenin is the more important figure overall in world history. My vote goes to Lenin.
Trotsky was the architect of the Red Army, without which the Bolsheviks could not have won the civil war. He was also an important revolutionary theorist in his own right. However, Lenin was obviously the major personality in the Bolshevik revolution. If you evaluate them as they would have you evaluate them, you have to conclude that Lenin was more important because a revolutionary army doesn't just spring up from nowhere; the political struggle of professional revolutionaries (of whom Lenin was clearly the dominant one) is necessary before anyone decides to take up arms. Of course, they would also say to you that ultimately they are just agents of impersonal historical forces anyway. On top of that all that, with a few exceptions Leninism is part of the philosophy of every communist movement in the world, and Leninist ideas regarding party organisation and political strategy have been directly copied by movements across the political spectrum, including the most extreme anti-communists. To an extent, this is an accident of history because, of course, Stalin deprived Trotsky of the chance to have a greater impact on the Soviet Union and world history, and worked consciously to erase such influence as he had had.
.
I vote :gah2: since I believe without the presence of either the communist revolution in Russia wouldn't have been possible.
.
Don't you mean "wouldn't" have been possible? ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
In any case, I tend to agree. I think both were crucial to the Bolsheviks' success, and that the revolution might not have sustained itself in the long term otherwise.
The arguments so far say that Trotsky was more important to Bolshevik victory in the civil war. So, I'd like to hear some opinions on these:
1) Lenin presided over the Supreme Council Of Defence and, from there, he had direct control over the Red Army outlining policies that regarded the conduct of the civil war.
2) Lenin knew the civil war was coming and had planned thoroughly for it. He was easily the master strategist in the Bolshevik campaign. For example, he was behind the Land Decree Act, allowing peasants to do what they were already doing (removing landowners and taking land, right?). Although it didn't guarantee the support of the peasantry, it was a decent start and, compared with the brutality and intentions (return to Tsarist autocracy) of some White troops, made the Reds seem the lesser evil.
3) It might even be fair to say that all of Lenin's major policies from the October Revolution onwards had the civil war in mind. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (something Trotsky was strongly opposed to) allowed the Bolsheviks to build up and prepare for the civil war and it's fair to say that the better preparation and organisation of the Red Army was a key reason for the victory.
When are we considering the Revolution to have ended?
It was Trotsky who, over Lenin and Stalin's objections, kept the experienced officer corp from the former Russian army in position to render advice and prevent the complete collapse of the new 'Red' Russians forces when they had to almost quadruple the size of the Red army in 1918. IMHO as a duffer and non-historian that decision alone preserved the Reds from utter disaster. His severe enforcement of discipline went hand in hand with that measure, but without the advice of those men the Reds would've been raising a mob, not an army, and would've been quickly butchered in the following battles.
None of the victories in the field would have been possible without first organizing an effecient and manageable armed force in 1918, and it was only barely at Trotsky's insistence that the frequent defections of those former officers was overlooked and their advice put into practice. An army cannot be created (Or massively expanded) by sheer desire or political zeal, it requires experience, coordination, and intelligence. Trotsky took advantage of what little of those the Reds had, and successfully orchestrated the expansion of the Red army on that basis.
It's hard to argue with results in the field too. Trostsky was driven to seek success in battles at the front over success in the political games back at home. Contrast this with Lenin's frequent shifting political alliances and inconstant policy decisions.
Of course though those political battles would have been meaningless without victory in the field, it was politics that ultimately broke Trotsky (And the Russian Revolution, depending on how you view Stalin's role during and after WWII).
:egypt:
Actually, I'm fairly sure the use of Tsarist officers was (albeit maybe reluctantly) supported by Lenin at the 8th Party Conference in 1919. However, it was the cause of the riff between Trotsky and Stalin and yes, I'd agree that it was an important factor in Red victory.
It's all well and good to point out how Trotsky managed the Red Army, but the fact is that politics was where the revolution was won, and Lenin was clearly the most important politician. White victories in battle were meaningless as long as they remained largely a cabal of aristocrats and generals whose views and tactics, which pre-dated the advent of mass politics, failed to change to suit the 20th century. Lenin took seemingly un-Bolshevik positions but that is part and parcel of why he was successful. He was totally committed to overthrowing the Tsar and the provisional government, and instituting a Bolshevik regime, but he was pragmatic enough to change his policies to gain political support and build up the Bolshevik juggernaut to the point where it could ultimately crush anyone else.
.
I'm p0wη€d. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
.
Without knowing too much about the revolution, I would have to say that a revolution would fail without a strong figurehead, in this case Lenin.
Trotsky was something of a figurehead for Red troops.
Communists s***.
Trotsky of course made the bigger military contribution. Implementing the adopted political and military strategy on the ground required a lot of improvisation, endurance and toughness, qualities which T. possessed. For a guy with his puny stature, glasses and aristocratic manner, controlling this highly unruly and violent mob (just read Isaac Babel's Red Cavalry) in risky outposts at -30 temperatures was no mean feat. I believe that in one case he had the local Red Army command summarily executed in order to encourage the others. The 1921 Kronstadt affair, in which Trotsky once more took the lead, shows how utterly ruthless this 'humanist' was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craterus
https://img176.imageshack.us/img176/...tskivr7.th.jpg
On the other hand Lenin was the political genius behind the Red Army, as already mentioned. Probably because of his being the son of a village school inspector, he had a better understanding of the countryside, which was of supreme importance in motivating/manipulating the Red soldiers as well. His slogan "Peace and Land" was a lie because the Bolsheviks wanted both military expansion and collective property, but it was a powerful lie because it appealed to the basic needs of the peasantry (most soldiers were of course peasants) and because Kerensky could never promise the same, leaving the field wide open for Bolshevik agitation. Trotsky on the other hand grew up in cosmopolitan Odessa and spoke French fluently. He was a great speaker, but not a pragmatic thinker.
In fact I think Uljanov was indispensable to victory, particularly because he understood the war-weariness of the Russian peasantry in 1918 and hence the advantage of Brest-Litovsk. Bronstein was not, his initial attitude in Brest-Litovsk came close to sabotage and could have spelled disaster. His attitude with regard to peace with Germany shows that he was too self-obsessed or naive to recognize the limitations of the Russian revolution. He thought his 'permanent revolution' was about to start and the German workers would soon be up in arms. He literally considered it to be 'his' revolution, his personal inheritance, since he had been the only Communist leader who was on the spot during the 1905 revolt and thought that he alone could properly assess the spirit of the masses. In fact a minority of the German proletariat would rise up in 1919, but they were easily defeated because the bulk of German workers did not support them.